1. No mystery or wonder as to why the popular idea 'six degrees of separation' is half of 12?

2. It probably happens less than half the time that people are conscious of it, only because of the balance of people being blindfolded to that side of their consciousness.

3. What is the justification for equating Time & Speed of Light, as in the formula for Lightyear (LY) Distance Covered by Light in one (1) earth year = 9.463 x 10^12 km/sec^2 (= 2.99 x 10^12 x 31,556,874 seconds per 365.2416 days each solar orbit complete?

4. Can we represent Time in Scalar Wave form?

5. If we maintain the Lightyear Distance function, for calculations across the universe, and if it is not possible to approach that speed, and there is nothing faster than c, how do we 'see' in the telescope what we believe happened at this time in the past?

6. More to the point of this post again - is there any truth 'self-evident' in which to expose '1984' is then and now?

7. How can we express the concept of time in a wave form duality, if there is no coincident number in the gregorian?

Could there be 120 seconds in a minute, not 60? Or 120 minutes per hour, or 72 hours per day of 36 and 36, corresponding to the 720 degrees in two rotations around a circle?

8. What other variations might exist to obscure the clock that we want while appearing to use the divine clock?

I don't feel like that is something anyone should really seek to promote - that is another form of control through power, and entirely expected, with more confusion and intensity all the way thru the end of 2008.

I've tried to keep it as simple and concise as possible, although
it might not seem that way at first glance.

Anyway, give it a go and see what you think, I'm open for critique.
Post comments here or e-mail justin_lawless at hotmail.com

Thanks to Fintan for putting it up on treeincarnation.com
and for helping with developing the explanation._________________~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~

I wonder what angle of illumination did you use in drawing
your sphere? What level of backlighting and of surface
reflectivity and/or illumination did you use?

Maybe your superconscious mind part was drawing a visual
Topography of Zero and it's relationship to light.

LOL, I don't know the original lighting and oreintation angles on the sphere,
it was basically a blend of different images, so who knows, but like you say,
it's a godamn eyeball.

This angle of the light on the eyeball is really interesting.

Fintan wrote:

At the back of the eyeball is the fovea --an area of acute
vision. But it is not directly opposite the cornea. It is
displaced about 4 to 8 degrees to it.

Thats a brilliant observation, I never noticed that, it looks
to me like that precession principle again.

Just like the Precession of the earths axis is not in the same
axis of the earths spin, i.e. it's not at 180° to the spin.
Looks to me like the same principle is going on here with the
eye, the fovea isn't at a 180° angle to where the light is coming
in, it's not in a straight line, it's Precessed at an angle.

Yeah, deffinitely worth checking into some more, after all, only the eyes can see.

Fintan wrote:

All this, by the way, shows how the cosmic zero is not
closed, but must allow "light" to enter.

Speaking of which, the topology of these numbers is making some
interesting correlations to what you've hinted at. It's the 0 and 1
relationship.

If by second powering 0 we're talking about the surface, and a spherical
surface having both convex and concave (being 2), then third powering
gives us volumemetric or an interior relationship only, which would mean
that O³ would be 1, half of whats going on at the surface level. Sounds
counter-intuitive that you get less by multiplying three times but IMO
It fits because it's only dealing with the inside.

It also fits well with what we talked about with the compression/tension in the
balloon analogy, compression inside, tension outside, also the idea of the sphere
having a 'point' at it's centre and neither one existing indipendantly. Using those
terms the 1 can be thought of as being inside of 0, just like the volume of the 0
being 1. Makes you think about the words 1-nside, 0-utside in a new light.

Another aspect of the '0 sphere' not being closed, is this interesting point which
comes up in relation to the concept of the sphere itself. The greek definition of
a sphere says that the surface of a sphere is always equidistant from it's centre
point making it a perfect spherical surface, like an infinite continium. If that were
so, the surface would be completely impervious, in other words, it would divide
the entire universe into two and there could be no communication between the
inside and outside, they would be forever seperated. On the other hand, the spheres
that we see in nature aren't perfectly spherical they're made up of billions of holes
approximating a sphere. The holes make it like a spherical net, it's in this way that the
inside can communicate with the outside and turn itself inside-out. But when you
think about it, the convex and concave are essentially the same, they're just viewed
from different angles of observation._________________~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~

It also fits well with what we talked about with the compression/tension in the
balloon analogy, compression inside, tension outside, also the idea of the sphere
having a 'point' at it's centre and neither one existing indipendantly. Using those
terms the 1 can be thought of as being inside of 0, just like the volume of the 0
being 1. Makes you think about the words 1-nside, 0-utside in a new light.

Unity describes not the number zero, but a condition of the verb 'is'.

0 = isn't?

Or, zero is a state of undifferrentiated non 'verbing' and can only enter the 'verbing universe' through the process of division, creating the boundary of subject and object.

Great stuff Jerry, your picking up on some key features of numbers.
I'm coming to think of them more as symbolic or archytypal manifestations,
not having existence in any literal sense, but more like following
metaphysical patterns.

Seems to me that number is like a primordial language that doesnt follow
the rules in a logical mathematical sense. I spose thats what the article is
trying to get at.

Finding out some interesting things on the origins of the cypher, apart
from the suppression by the PTB on the use of the zero, I find that even
the early explanations on the use of cypher were shrouded in confusion.

Quote:

We now come to considering the first appearance of zero as a number. Let us first note that it is not in any sense a natural candidate for a number. From early times numbers are words which refer to collections of objects. Certainly the idea of number became more and more abstract and this abstraction then makes possible the consideration of zero and negative numbers which do not arise as properties of collections of objects. Of course the problem which arises when one tries to consider zero and negatives as numbers is how they interact in regard to the operations of arithmetic, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. In three important books the Indian mathematicians Brahmagupta, Mahavira and Bhaskara tried to answer these questions.

Brahmagupta attempted to give the rules for arithmetic involving zero and negative numbers in the seventh century. He explained that given a number then if you subtract it from itself you obtain zero. He gave the following rules for addition which involve zero:-

The sum of zero and a negative number is negative, the sum of a positive number and zero is positive, the sum of zero and zero is zero.

Subtraction is a little harder:-

A negative number subtracted from zero is positive, a positive number subtracted from zero is negative, zero subtracted from a negative number is negative, zero subtracted from a positive number is positive, zero subtracted from zero is zero.

Brahmagupta then says that any number when multiplied by zero is zero but struggles when it comes to division:-

A positive or negative number when divided by zero is a fraction with the zero as denominator. Zero divided by a negative or positive number is either zero or is expressed as a fraction with zero as numerator and the finite quantity as denominator. Zero divided by zero is zero.

Really Brahmagupta is saying very little when he suggests that n divided by zero is n/0. Clearly he is struggling here. He is certainly wrong when he then claims that zero divided by zero is zero. However it is a brilliant attempt from the first person that we know who tried to extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero.

In 830, around 200 years after Brahmagupta wrote his masterpiece, Mahavira wrote Ganita Sara Samgraha which was designed as an updating of Brahmagupta's book. He correctly states that:-

... a number multiplied by zero is zero, and a number remains the same when zero is subtracted from it.

However his attempts to improve on Brahmagupta's statements on dividing by zero seem to lead him into error. He writes:-

A number remains unchanged when divided by zero.

Since this is clearly incorrect my use of the words "seem to lead him into error" might be seen as confusing. The reason for this phrase is that some commentators on Mahavira have tried to find excuses for his incorrect statement.

Bhaskara wrote over 500 years after Brahmagupta. Despite the passage of time he is still struggling to explain division by zero. He writes:-

A quantity divided by zero becomes a fraction the denominator of which is zero. This fraction is termed an infinite quantity. In this quantity consisting of that which has zero for its divisor, there is no alteration, though many may be inserted or extracted; as no change takes place in the infinite and immutable God when worlds are created or destroyed, though numerous orders of beings are absorbed or put forth.

So Bhaskara tried to solve the problem by writing n/0 = ∞. At first sight we might be tempted to believe that Bhaskara has it correct, but of course he does not. If this were true then 0 times ∞ must be equal to every number n, so all numbers are equal. The Indian mathematicians could not bring themselves to the point of admitting that one could not divide by zero. Bhaskara did correctly state other properties of zero, however, such as 0² = 0, and √0 = 0.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Zero.html

^^LOL... In other words, we have it all figured out now. _________________~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~

6. a secret method of writing, as by transposition or substitution of letters, specially formed symbols, or the like. Compare cryptography.
7. writing done by such a method; a coded message.
8. the key to a secret method of writing.

The history of '0' appears to share the same ambiguity as, well, history itself. Like so many other conceptual social developments, however, widespread use of '0' suddenly appeared everywhere the Venetian empire 'colonized' and installed their systems of Republican government, limited liability corporate trade, and debt/credit financial structure based on the double entry bookkeeping system of accounting.

Conceptually, this debt / credit system is completely dependent on the cypher, or '0', as both the alpha and omega in the flow of 'financial energy'.

Quote:

Luca Pacioli and the birth of modern accountancy

The first book on accounting was written by a Croatian merchant Benedetto Cotrugli, who is also known as Benedikt Kotruljevi;#263;, from the city of Dubrovnik.

During his life in Italy he met many merchants and decided to write, Della Mercatvra et del Mercante Perfetto (On Trade and the Perfect Merchant) in which he elaborated on the principles of modern, double-entry book-keeping. He finished his lifework in 1458. However, his work was not published until 1573, as a result of which his contributions to the field have been overlooked by the general public.

For this reason, Luca Pacioli (1445 - 1517), also known as Friar Luca dal Borgo, is credited for the "birth" of accounting. His Summa de arithmetica, geometrica, proportioni et proportionalita (Venice 1494), a synthesis of the mathematical knowledge of his time, includes the first published description of the method of keeping accounts that Venetian merchants used at that time, known as the double-entry accounting system.

Although Pacioli codified rather than invented this system, he is widely regarded as the "Father of Accounting". The system he published included most of the accounting cycle as we know it today. He described the use of journals and ledgers, and warned that a person should not go to sleep at night until the debits equalled the credits!

His ledger had accounts for assets (including receivables and inventories), liabilities, capital, income, and expenses — the account categories that are reported on an organization's balance sheet and income statement, respectively. He demonstrated year-end closing entries and proposed that a trial balance be used to prove a balanced ledger. His treatise also touches on a wide range of related topics from accounting ethics to cost accounting.

In record keeping, particulary accountancy, the double-entry bookkeeping (or double-entry accounting) system is the basis of the standard system used by businesses and other organizations to record financial transactions. Its premise is that a business's (or other organization's) financial condition and results of operations are best represented by several variables, called accounts, each of which reflects a particular aspect of the business as a monetary value.

[...]
History

The origins of a primitive double-entry system have been traced as far back as the 12th century. Some sources suggest that Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici first introduced this method for the Medici bank. The earliest extant records that follow the modern double-entry form are those of Amatino Manucci, a Florentine merchant at the beginning of the 14th century[1]. By the end of the 15th century, the merchant venturers of Venice used this system widely.

Luca Pacioli, a monk and collaborator of Leonardo da Vinci, first codified the system in a 1494 mathematics textbook [2]. Pacioli is often called the "father of accounting" because he was the first to publish a detailed description of the double-entry system, which enabled others to study and use it.[3]

Even the article you quoted suggests that even though the Indians apparently struggled with this concept for hundreds of years, the adventurous Merchants of Venice had zero in a full embrace by the 12th - 13th centuries.

Quote:

One might have thought that the progress of the number systems in general, and zero in particular, would have been steady from this time on. However, this was far from the case. Cardan solved cubic and quartic equations without using zero. He would have found his work in the 1500's so much easier if he had had a zero but it was not part of his mathematics. By the 1600's zero began to come into widespread use but still only after encountering a lot of resistance.

Now, some sort of nutbag history revisionist might argue that Brahmagupta, Mahavira and Bhaskara are fictional creations of these same social architects in order to give the 'Late Fee' some degree of ancient historical justification. If I meet one, I'll let you know.

Finally, your Topology of '0' graphic is indeed fascinating - I definitely saw the cornea in there - I assumed it was intentional and very clever. If you simply made that graphic 'intuitively', it's even cooler.

Then I stared at it for a while and began to trip out. There's all kinds of crazy stuff suggested in that shading pattern - cardioid patterns, a human head (as seen from above, with the corneas as the 'ears' - similar to Fintan's time space axis graphic), and even a human embryo. To me, at least. Maybe the meds...

Anyway, I was suddenly forced to pull out my neanderthal photoshop skills, as I once again 'saw' the archetypal image that seems to be following me recently. Don't know exactly what it means, but it feels like it means sumthin... (cue theme from 'Close Encounters...)

The history of '0' appears to share the same ambiguity as, well, history itself. Like so many other conceptual social developments, however, widespread use of '0' suddenly appeared everywhere the Venetian empire 'colonized' and installed their systems of Republican government, limited liability corporate trade, and debt/credit financial structure based on the double entry bookkeeping system of accounting.

Good point, just like the roman numeral accounting was used as a devise to allow only
the elite to calculate goods. Such as the lower class only being able to count "things"
by scoring lines corresponding to goods like horses, sheep, slaves etc. The accounting
could only be done by specialists. When the zero was adopted (eventually), suddenly
large calculations were possible for anyone with the know how, this is where science
really took off. But from your analysis on the finacial side of things, the merchants
had a new system of control. i.e. double entry-book keeping.

Jerry Fletcher wrote:

Conceptually, this debt / credit system is completely dependent on the cypher, or '0', as both the alpha and omega in the flow of 'financial energy'.

Shure is...

Jerry Fletcher wrote:

Even the article you quoted suggests that even though the Indians apparently struggled with this concept for hundreds of years, the adventurous Merchants of Venice had zero in a full embrace by the 12th - 13th centuries.

That is strange...

Jerry Fletcher wrote:

Now, some sort of nutbag history revisionist might argue that Brahmagupta, Mahavira and Bhaskara are fictional creations of these same social architects in order to give the 'Late Fee' some degree of ancient historical justification. If I meet one, I'll let you know.

LMAO, sounds like conspiracy theorist talk to me, well if you find anymore of this
nutbag history revisionists stuff and their take on the zero, send 'em here.... we love it

It's a familliar story, didn't we have something similar come up in this thread in relation to this guy.

Is'nt this the same character who talked about the cube.......and on philisophical issues like the many and the ONE.

Bucky fuller was on to the power that the seafearing merchants had and
the tricks they played to keep the landlubbers in the dark about such
things.

The word "zero" came via French zéro from Venetian dialect Italian zero, which (together with "cipher") came via Italian zefiro from Arabic , safira = "it was empty", sifr = "zero", "nothing", which was used to translate Sanskrit sunya , meaning void or empty.

Italian zefiro already meant "west wind" from Latin and Greek zephyrus; this may have influenced the spelling when transcribing Arabic sifr.[1] The Italian mathematician Fibonacci (c.1170-1250), who grew up in Arab North Africa and is credited with introducing the Hindu decimal system to Europe, used the term zephyrum. This became zefiro in Italian, which was contracted to zero in Venetian, giving the modern English word.

As the Hindu decimal zero and its new mathematics spread from the Arab world to Europe in the Middle Ages, words derived from sifr and zephyrus came to refer to calculation, as well as to privileged knowledge and secret codes. According to Ifrah, "in thirteenth-century Paris, a 'worthless fellow' was called a "... cifre en algorisme", i.e., an "arithmetical nothing"."[1] (Algorithm is also a borrowing from the Arabic, in this case from the name of the 9th century mathematician al-Khwarizmi.) From sifr also came French chiffre = "digit", "figure", "number", chiffrer = "to calculate or compute", chiffré= "encrypted". Today, the word in Arabic is still sifr, and cognates of sifr are common throughout the languages of Europe. A few additional examples follow.

Sephiroth (or "enumerations"), in the Kabbalah of Judaism, are the ten attributes that God (who is referred to as Aur Ain Soph, "Limitless Light, Light Without End") created through which he can project himself to the universe and man. These emanations manifest not only in the physical part of the universe, but also in the metaphysical one. Kabbalah distinguishes between four different "worlds" or "planes":

The Tree of Life (Heb. Etz haChayim), in the Bible is a tree in the Garden of Eden whose fruit gives everlasting life, i.e. immortality. After eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the biblical account states that Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life. The Bible reads that God set an angel (angles?? ) to guard the entrance to the Garden, so that mankind would not eat of the tree and "Be Like Us".

.................

Serpents, trees and fruit are important symbols in the religion of Jews, Christians, and Muslims. These symbols are also found in the Norse saga of the ash tree Yggdrasil where the tree provides a magical springwater of knowledge. In opposition to the serpent immortality, is the eagle and hawk. There is a similar mythology in China, where a carving of a Tree of Life depicts a bird and a dragon. In Chinese mythology, the dragon often represents immortality. There is also, in Chinese mythology, the story of a tree that produces a peach every three thousand years. The one who eats the fruit receives immortality.

James Frazer in his book The Golden Bough (1890) attempts to give a coherent unified account of a number of religious myths and symbols. Ioan P. Couliano provides a semiotic analysis in The Tree of Gnosis (1991). Of course, a multiplicity of interpretations exist concerning the sephiroth. It is important to note that the sephiroth and the Tree of Knowledge are distinguished (Gen. 2.9) and that prohibition of eating the fruit concerns the latter(Gen. 2.17). That Adam or Eve could eat of the sephiroth only becomes a concern to God after they have consumed fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (Gen. 3.22). Although with some variation, orthodox Judaism and Christianity have interpreted the Genesis 3 account, in its most basic form, as follows: Genesis 2 ends with the creation of Adam and Eve and their blissful state of innocence (they are one flesh, v. 24; and not ashamed of their nakedness, v. 25). Gen. 3.1 introduces the "crafty" serpent who speaks to Eve and creates doubt by questioning God's interdiction from eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The serpent states that its fruit would impart divine wisdom rather than death, specifically, that she would be like God (Gen. 3.5). Eve is deceived and in turn deceives Adam. Their eyes are opened and their first reaction is shame (they proceed to cover their nakedness, v. 7), then fear (they flee God's presence, v. 8 ). God converses with Adam and curses him, Eve and the serpent for their transgressions (Gen. 3.9-21). Only in Gen. 3.22 does God express concern about the Tree of Life and banishes Adam and Eve from Eden.

So it seems to me that this word 'sephiroth' (meaning enumirations) correlates to the original root for the word zero, i.e. zero = cipher = sifir = sephir.

I also get the feeling that it relates to the word sphere also, with the phonetics of the word and as the tree of life is represented by ten spheres.

moving on....

Fuller got me into this fascinating aspect of numbers, he called it Indigs

Indig's are kind of like numerology, basically you reduce the number down to it's base value by adding the figures together.
As I said in a previous post, theres an octave wave cycle going through the number system, it's simply an additive four reversing
or 'mirroring' to a subtractive four. It's a progression of adding four to zero, then subtracting four from nine, this is why we
can start to think of zero and nine as the same thing, makes sense because any number multiplied by 9 can be reduced (through indig's)
to 9, mirroring the same property that zero has (alledgedly ). As an example, 9x54 = 486, 4+8+6 = 18, 1+8 = 9. It even works if any
of the multipliers add to nine, as in 63x5 = 315, 3+1+5 = 9. So even the sound of the word 'nine' in all languages is hinting at this
fact, 9 and 0 are the same, nine is nothing.

With that in mind, a helluva lot of cryptic numbers in many different traditions start to make some sense IMO.

This piece is from a 'numeronomy' book called Syndex, relating the wave cycle functions of our baseten system to Bucky fullers work on numbers. The book is a fascinating read in itself, but im highlighting this particular page because its got some of the most significant numbers that show up throughout ancient cultures.

In it you can get a good idea of the sheer ammount of times the nine (none) shows up in 'ancient' writings. Try the indig method on the
numbers for yourself, see how many 'nines' or 'nothings' are there....

Quote:

The Sumerian calendar was based on the 25,920 Precession cycles. While the Platonic Year was based on the divine number 2160 (1080 x 2). Plato mentions another divine number in his Republic, 5040 (2520 x 2).

So, the crucial key to the anatomy of BASETEN NUMBER BEHAVIOR lies in the special series of number modeules referred to as the Holotomic Sequence.

It represents the ordinal series of those minimal numbers that accomodate the maximum amount of consecutive factors of division from one onwards. The first nine members of the sequence include these symmetrical entities.

12
24
72
360
2520
27720
360360
6126120
116396280

The first four numbers are recognized as numbers frequently used in prebabylonian times as metrological modules--the zodiac, 24 hours of the daily cycle; 72 = 1 degree of arc every 72 years; 360 degrees in a circle.

The next number (2520) is not commonly recognized, but 5040 was held in importance by Plato and alluded to in Revelations through the number 1260 (1260 x 2 = 2520).

THE MAJOR SIGNIFICANCE OF 2520 IS THAT IT IS THE FIRST NUMBER DIVISIBLE BY ALL NINE BASE DIGITS. FOR THIS REASON WE CALL IT THE AURIC KEY, for it made numeronomy graphically visible.

The next number 27720 of course is divisible by the first palindromic prime which is eleven and through its intimate connection to number nine is instrumental in the cycloreflexive wave that both separates and connects the Holotomes from and to each other. That is, it preserves the logical continuity of the transfinite chain of number. Each holotome retains and builds on the image of the one that precedes it.

The semiarbitrary answer to the question of why some unknown geometer selected 360 degrees for equating a circle has been that 360 has more than the usual amount of divisors for its size. This is not necessarily a complete, specific, and logical answer.

As a matter of fact, 360 is divisible by all base digits except prime number seven and when we multiply 360 by prime number seven, we produce 2520 which is the first and lowest number divisible by all base digits.

Since by multiplying 2520 by the next prime and receiving another palindrome followed by a zero, i.e. 27720, we naturally decide to destrapolate this sequence to see where it begins:

27720 - 11 = 2520 - 7 = 360 - 5 = 72 - 3 = 24 - 2 = 12

Since these are exactly the most often cited numbers of ancient metrology we have arguably discovered a long-lost key to the basis of ancient metrology or numeronomy.

To amplify this claim, note that 12, 24, 72, 360, 2520, 27720, etc. are the exact sequence of minimum sums that accomodate the maximum amount of consecutive divisors (factors of division). #SIX was exactly half of the first true Holotome, making the first perfect number the nave of Holotome A (12).

The Holotomic Sequence was discovered through the systematic graphic analysis of the enspiralment of number 108 (AUM), and so was the 9/11 Cycloflex.

Multiples of 360, show the linkage between 360 and 2520 by prime numbers 7 and 11; this table yields interesting results.

Anyway, heres some interesting characteristics of our baseten (octave) revealing itself through the multiplacation tables. Interesting positions for the nines and the numbers surrounding them too...

Quote:

To enable further study upon the significance of certain numbers, and numbers in general, let us now consider a common table of multiplication used in mathematics. Children use this table all of the time. It is a very simple square table showing the factors and sums of multiplication basics in an X-Y type grid as shown below. For our use though, it will be limited to only eight digits, as any number multiplied by nine equals nine:

The row across the top is 1 multiplied by each of 8 numbers. The column down the left side is each number multiplied by one. The factors that are normally on the top and side of this sort of table have been left out. The next table is really the same as this one; the difference is that all of the sums have been reduced to single digits.

There are many things to be noted here. First, there are only four nines present, in a square pattern in the center of the table. Second, the patterns of the second four numbers are the exact opposite of the first four. Third, any two numbers that are the same distance from the center along a horizontal or vertical line add to nine. Fourth, that only the numbers 1,2,4,5,7,and 8 have themselves as sums of their multiplication. The other three numbers; 3,6, and 9 can only result in a 3,6, or nine when multiplied by any other number. His forms a kind of grid between the multiples of three, that looks like a "Tic-tac-toe" grid. A further analysis reveals even more repeating patterns, but let us concentrate upon these for now:

Theres loads of interesting patterns coming out once you reduce to Indig's.
Heres a triangular multiplication table, looks better than those square ones if you ask me

Reduced to Indigs... (notice the number of the beast )

Another thing that struck me with this indig method is that theres some sort of fundamental trinity of numbers going on.
Its like the 0,1,2 relationship, but funnily enough the two is like the full octave part of the baseten, so 2 is actually all
8 numbers. Visually, its the infinity sign, but also it represents two circles crossing each other, like two zeros, 00.

Like in the baseten hand graphic, theres the angle part and the frequency part, the angle part is zero or nothingness, the frequency part
is the 'infinite possibility' octave pattern. Maybe the 1 represents the divider, the thing that divides 'nothing' in order for it to be 'infinite'.

OK heres just one example of this trinary pattern in numbers coming out in the third powering (cubing/volumetric relation) of numbers.

Through the websites I linked to above, I went off wondering into some kabbalistic symbology, and when I saw Aleister Crowley's
cryptic book of the law (which he claimed he did not write), a lot of it fitted with these methods.

There are three characters which appear in the book of the law, IMO each is a representation of this archetypal trinity.

They are the 0, 1 and 8, i.e. nothing, seperation(division) and infinity.

And funnily enough, the nine is blatantly referenced to as being 'nothing' IMO.

This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.

Quote:

The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none!

Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen.

But they have the half: unite by thine art so that all disappear.

61 + 8 + 80 + 418 = 567

Indig value;

5+6+7 is 18, 1+8 is nine (nothing)

OK thats enough cryptic stuff, you get the message...

So then, just what is nothing? Everything that we can see feel touch etc. is something, something has weight, nothing has no weight.
I still like using the ol' angle and frequency analogy, so, somethings must have frequency, nothing is a-priori i.e. weightless angle.
It's the physical and metaphysical relaionship, Matter is frequency, Mind is angle.

Oh, one more thing....

This guy Marko Rodin is apparently doing something very similar to this, Theres been some helpful threads here discussing his rodin coil toroidal math.

Theres a lotta suspect and downright ridiculous claims being made by this guy, talking crap basically.....doesnt mean all of it is rubbish tho, its just that theres more to it than meets the eye.

Like...something that just clicked for me when I first saw his 'system'.

Angle and Frequency ? ?_________________~"“True observation begins when devoid of set patterns, and freedom of expression occurs when one is beyond systems.”"~

...Plenty of mysticism and occult stuff, kabbalah etc. most of which doesnt make much sense to me... LOL

Maybe someone out there can piece some more of these threads together...

Quote:

1. "Tree of Life" (a.k.a. Jacob's Ladder)

Numbered from 0-9, then (I believe) is not 10 but is the "abyss" or the point one would transcend to the next level (up to the next higher ladder set). To do that is to go into the 'abyss' which is a leap of faith that the top where you leap into the abyss becomes the bottom "0" of the next level. That's why it is 0-9 not 10. Also why I believe we are taught to be fixated on the decimal (base 10) number system, as it forces us to DROP the 0 as the first number.

It has always been considered the first in the series of every ancient numbering math system I have studied. I posted elsewhere about the easily overlooked simple fact that if we were to start with 0, not 1, then the number 12 is really the 13th digit all without changing anything to the numbering system.

I feel that 13 is far more significant than the number 12, which makes sense if you consider your
(9+4) = 13 = (1+3) = 4 (Dimensions, corners of the earth, etc.)
as well as
13x2=26 letters x 10 = 260 different cell types in the human body.

Quote:

2. Accounting System and Zero

Using 0 to maintain control? I feel the key aspect of the financial system (besides the paper money) is the idea that interest is charged in PERPETUITY.

Quote:

3. The Syndex

This is A-1 First Class deception - I cannot believe it! They are (in my perception) trying to extol the 'synergies and symmetries' by extoling the virtues of the base 10 system, methinks before too many start to look at say base 20 (much easier) which would reveal the true nature of our base 10 - which is HALF. (1 | 0)

There really is no base 10, at least not before the Romans invented it, and we all know where they got their motivation.

Not only that, but if you read below I have highlighted the areas which seem to me trying just a little too hard to 'sell' you on the 'beauty and simplicity' of the base 10, which they time and time again bring back around IN PERPETUITY. They are using this also to try and morph the solar system of Earth, and our addiction to the 365 day year which means nothing except for agriculture AND tax payments AND years IN PERPETUITY. Now that it will be more and more obvious that our evolution of as a solar system will gradually become more focused on the orbit our entire solar system is in around the galactic center people will start to realize that next year is NOT the same as last year - far from it. It takes 250 million of our years to orbit the galactic center once - essentially, the galactic year = 250 million Earth years, or when we have evolved to that level we will experience 250 million years as the equivalent of 1 year. (We will all have new space suits by then and naps will be 1 million years minimum so not to worry! )

Read below - this is definitely a thread leading future.

Thanks Just0! Nice work.

Quote:

Synchrographics regards symmetry as a primary analytical reference, making the Syndex archetypal system of number classes possible.

The foundation of this system is palindromes and transpalindromes, yielding 12 classes of number.

(not accidental = on purpose or by intention; not without = definite significance)

Transpalindromes are the reversal of any particular number exceeding a single digit.

Numeronomy, the laws relating to the essential structure and dynamics of number, is a new word for an extremely ancient science.
(what's the old word?)

This science, (based on the knowledge that the continuum contains a definite structural order with general laws that describe the nature of that order), has laws that relate to the general behavior of nature itself.

Each number has both a geometrical and numerical identity. The outcome of Synchrographics is that numbers speak for themselves through structure and synergetic behavior.(i.e. like 'numbers' as 'people' speaking 'for themselves' through 'the matrix?')

All Syndex mandalogs (number wheels) are the product of the systematic generation of the exact sequence of minimax factorization.

They have the perfect retrograde feature by which the patterns generated in the first half of the spiral are reversed at midpoint and are reflected as a mirrored image in the second half of the spiral.

Revisioning the number continuum with the concept of simultaneous counterflow yields a more accurate (OBSCURE?) picture. This revisioning is also happening in post-quantum physics under the rubric of quantum backflow.

• I don't know about anyone else but I get very suspicious when I read this sort of verbal diarrhea that in my gut says "BULLSHIT."

• "Revisioning the number continuum" for "simultaneous counterflow yields more accurate"
????? is for what purpose again?

• Changing the what of nature to suit whose nefarious purposes?
(Of course, if it is to make fit quantum physics then by all means, revision with vision! :roll:)

Quote:

With large spans of numbers, the complex interrelationships become difficult to visualize without good graphics. (I have good graphics)

Because of the octave nature of the base cycle, there cannot be more than four consecutive transpalindromic pairs in a single symmetrical sequence, regardless of the amount of digits in each individual number.

The Holotomic Sequence consists of a series of key numbers or circular unities in the rhythmic wave. (i.e. back to the start again)

Buckminster Fuller was very excited and "filled with joy" over these revelations, when the Syndex discoveries were shared with him before his death. He wanted to publish them in a subsequent edition of Synergetics.

And why not, since they shed light on old enigmas.

After all, numbers are what they are, not what we wish them to be.
They will not do what they cannot do, i.e. show symmetries where none exist.

That stinks!

That last sentence = may technically be "not false" but can be interpreted as true in different ways.

Quote:

Their "revisionist" number set revised so it
"will not do....to show symmetries where none exist"

can also be interpreted to say that

"will do....to hide symmetries where they exist."

Quote:

Like 'don't bother investigating because we have all the symmetries worked out in advance, and NO, you cannot have the source code for the universe of numbers!!!

God, er Bill, er Mr. Gates, so sorry, is sick of tolerating your questions!! What part of NO don't you understand???

That would be the zero part, thanks.

I don't doubt that Mr. Fuller would have been excited about what they showed him before he passed away, but something tells me that he would smell a rat with these guys now.

Just0 - what does Bucky tell you in your dreams?

Is there symmetry in this image, or is that a symmetrical spiral?I think they are trying to make the spiral appear symmetrical, along the same lines as the 'perpetual screw' or augur - to dig holes, or on farms they use a lot, it appears not to go anywhere but they do a lot of work.

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: if it might help, or not is not the point an illusion

This is from NASA:

Quote:

What does Visible Light show us?
It is true that we are blind to many wavelengths of light. This makes it important to use instruments that can detect different wavelengths of light to help us to study the Earth and the Universe. However, since visible light is the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes can see, our whole world is oriented around it.And many instruments that detect visible light can see father and more clearly than our eyes could alone. That is why we use satellites to look at the Earth, and telescopes to look at the Sky!

Me or does that reek of Fedspeak? I go in a circle every time I drive thru the paragraph.

Quote:

I saw this reminded me of the eye up above so if it might help, or not is not the point an illusion.

The below pictures show the planet Uranus in true-color (on the left) and false-color (on the right).
The true-color has been processed to show Uranus as human eyes would see it from the vantage point of the Voyager 2 spacecraft, and is a composite of images taken through blue, green and orange filters. The false color and extreme contrast enhancement in the image on the right, brings out subtle details in the polar region of Uranus. The very slight contrasts visible in true color are greatly exaggerated here, making it easier to studying Uranus' cloud structure.

Here, Uranus reveals a dark polar hood surrounded by a series of progressively lighter concentric bands. One possible explanation is that a brownish haze or smog, concentrated over the pole, is arranged into bands by zonal motions of the upper atmosphere.

Quote:

This is 'us' to the computer (in wavelengths of 10/1,000,000,000 hertz):

Since the primary source of infrared radiation is heat or thermal radiation, any object which has a temperature radiates in the infrared. Even objects that we think of as being very cold, such as an ice cube, emit infrared.

The image shows a cat in the infrared. The orange areas are the warmest and the white-blue areas are the coldest. This image gives us a different view of a familiar animal as well as information that we could not get from a visible light picture.

When an object is not quite hot enough to radiate visible light, it will emit most of its energy in the infrared. For example, hot charcoal may not give off light but it does emit infrared radiation which we feel as heat. The warmer the object, the more infrared radiation it emits. This image shows a man holding up a lighted match! Which parts of this image do you think have the warmest temperature? How does the temperature of this man's glasses compare to the temperature of his hand?

Humans, at normal body temperature, radiate most strongly in the infrared at a wavelength of about 10 microns. (A micron is the term commonly used in astronomy for a micrometer or one millionth of a meter). Thats small enough for it to feel like flesh, right?

Instruments on board satellites can also take pictures of things in space. The image below of the center region of our galaxy was taken by IRAS. The hazy, horizontal S-shaped feature that crosses the image is faint heat emitted by dust in the plane of the Solar System

Humans may not be able to see infrared light, but did you know that snakes in the pit viper family, like rattlesnakes, have sensory "pits", which are used to image infrared light?

This allows the snake to detect warm blooded animals, even in dark burrows! Snakes with 2 sensory pits are even thought to have some depth perception in the infrared!

Does that look like a Death Star for the new Millenium or what?

Many things besides people and animals emit infrared light - the Earth, the Sun, and far away things like stars and galaxies do also!
For a view from Earth orbit, whether we are looking out into space or down at Earth, we can use instruments on board satellites.

Quote:

What do gamma-rays "show" us?Gamma-rays have the smallest wavelengths and the most energy of any other wave in the electromagnetic spectrum.
These waves are generated by radioactive atoms and in nuclear explosions. Gamma-rays can kill living cells, a fact which medicine uses to its advantage, using gamma-rays to kill cancerous cells.

How do we "see" using gamma-ray light?

Gamma-rays travel to us across vast distances of the universe, only to be absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere.
Different wavelengths of light penetrate the Earth's atmosphere to different depths. Instruments aboard high-altitude balloons and satellites like the Compton Observatory provide our only view of the gamma-ray sky.Gamma-rays are the most energetic form of light and are produced by the hottest regions of the universe.
They are also produced by such violent events as supernova explosions or the destruction of atoms, and by less dramatic events, such as the decay of radioactive material in space. Things like supernova explosions (the way massive stars die), neutron stars and pulsars, and black holes are all sources of celestial gamma-rays.

Gamma-ray astronomy did not develop until it was possible to get our detectors above all or most of the atmosphere, using balloons or spacecraft. The first gamma-ray telescope, carried into orbit on the Explorer XI satellite in 1961, picked up fewer than 100 cosmic gamma-ray photons!

Unlike optical light and X-rays, gamma rays cannot be captured and reflected in mirrors. The high-energy photons would pass right through such a device.Gamma-ray telescopes use a process called Compton scattering, where a gamma-ray strikes an electron and loses energy,similar to a cue ball striking an eight ball. If you could see gamma-rays, the night sky would look strange and unfamiliar.The gamma-ray moon just looks like a round blob - lunar features are not visible.
In high-energy gamma rays, the Moon is actually brighter than the quiet Sun. This image was taken by EGRET.
Satellites like GOES 6 and Landsat 7 look at the Earth. Special sensors, like those aboard the Landsat 7 satellite, record data about the amount of infrared light reflected or emitted from the Earth's surface.

:roll: Really? Unfamiliar? Except for all these images that always looked to me like they could have come out of a petri dish with an electron microscope. And we have to 'bombard electrons' with neutron 'bullets' of some kind to what look at gamma rays??
HELLO?? McFly?? 'Like a pool table full of ivory balls breaking' that never stops??? AND WE WONDER why our view of the universe appears to be VIOLENT?
If thats our "best view" then maybe we should look elsewhere? I know, I know...thanks.)

Essentially a "wall" of data, no matter what we see or how we think we are not primary to spirit, what we "see" is data in "thoughtform" of the "god of our wireless matrix" sense.

Quote:

This keeps reminding me of an egg hatching thru its shell under a light.
Thanks again for your post! You do nice work.